I know from personal experience that people make stupid and irresponsible financial decisions and have nobody to blame but themselves.

Yes, people do make mistakes. So do you and I and everyone. That doesn't mean we should go around attacking everyone who fails at something because of a mistake they made.

And I also believe that there are welfare queens and unemployment kings who are perfectly happy to live off the government handouts and make no effort to become self-sufficient. They've settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with and resist any efforts to encourage them to better themselves.

You're right - there are people like this. Still, to think everyone who is poor is like this is extremely myopic and wrong.

I'll play devil's advocate to try to get you to see how narrow minded that view is:

In America, most people seek to find a lifestyle where they are comfortable. So if someone finds a way to be "settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with", who are we to suggest they should do otherwise? Why are you attacking them for doing what most Americans attempt to do?

If someone is independently wealthy and decides they are comfortable and don't ever want to work, is that okay? What if someone has a spouse who pays all the bills and they decide they don't want to work because they are comfortable, is that okay? They're settling into a comfortable lifestyle and choosing not to work, so based on what you said you should be advocating that they better themselves and go to work anyway.

If your argument is people who use government resources shouldn't do that, perhaps the energy you and others spend judging these people for doing what most people try to do (but in a way you disapprove of) would be to go to the source (the government) and advocate change rather than wasting your energy on judgment for those who are living their lives the way the system lets them.

Wow. Even I didn't expect my devil's advocate argument to come together so well. Now I have to remind myself to advocate change rather than judging others for taking advantage of what is there the same way anyone else does.

?

"In America, most people seek to find a lifestyle where they are comfortable. So if someone finds a way to be "settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with", who are we to suggest they should do otherwise?"

Not if their chosen lifestyle is to live primarily off of government handouts, which is paid for out of the taxes that I pay based on the work that I do. Why should my hard work subsidize the lifestyle of somebody who chooses not to work?

"If someone is independently wealthy and decides they are comfortable and don't ever want to work, is that okay?"

Sure. If they're not taking government handouts, they are free to live their life anyway they want.

"What if someone has a spouse who pays all the bills and they decide they don't want to work because they are comfortable, is that okay?"
Sure. If they're not taking government handouts, they are free to live their life anyway they want.

"They're settling into a comfortable lifestyle and choosing not to work, so based on what you said you should be advocating that they better themselves and go to work anyway."
My comment was directed towards those who choose to live primarily off of government handouts. Not to everybody. That was clearly established in my comment.

"If your argument is people who use government resources shouldn't do that, perhaps the energy you and others spend judging these people for doing what most people try to do (but in a way you disapprove of) would be to go to the source (the government) and advocate change rather than wasting your energy on judgment for those who are living their lives the way the system lets them."
That is why I'll be voting for Romney on Tuesday."Wow. Even I didn't expect my devil's advocate argument to come together so well."

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back. You pretty much twisted every one of my statements out of context and ignored the gist of my comments in your "devil's advocate argument". Well done."Now I have to remind myself to advocate change rather than judging others for taking advantage of what is there the same way anyone else does."

Posted by seamar_116 on 11/3/2012 8:31:00 AM (view original):interesting discussion going on...can I flip it a bit? What about those that are born into a great situation, very well off, well-educated, and have a sense of entitlement, although they have in no way contributed to their own good fortune. Should they be entitled to pay lower taxes based on how the money they did not earn flows to them?

I have no idea where you are going with this. they do pay taxes on income, property, sales, etc.... assuming they have income, a home, or by stuff. what does being born into a wealthy family have to do with paying more or less in taxes?

me ... I'm a fair tax supporter.... no loopholes.... no income tax.... everyone pays the same sales tax rate when they buy goods or services..

Posted by seamar_116 on 11/3/2012 8:31:00 AM (view original):interesting discussion going on...can I flip it a bit? What about those that are born into a great situation, very well off, well-educated, and have a sense of entitlement, although they have in no way contributed to their own good fortune. Should they be entitled to pay lower taxes based on how the money they did not earn flows to them?

I say they are paying lower taxes because of how their income is "earned". Capital gains pays a lower tax rate than other forms of income. I only bring this up because of the assumptions being made about the work ethic and morals of the "poor." I just wondered if some of you considered that it cuts both ways.

Are you advocating for a VAT, in exchange for the elimination of income tax? Sales taxes do impact lower incomes more than higher ones, as everyone has basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, etc., but I know you get that. Am I correct in assuming that you are eliminating minimum tax credits, deductions for children, etc? The only tax would be a VAT (or however you want to define it)?

I know from personal experience that people make stupid and irresponsible financial decisions and have nobody to blame but themselves.

Yes, people do make mistakes. So do you and I and everyone. That doesn't mean we should go around attacking everyone who fails at something because of a mistake they made.

And I also believe that there are welfare queens and unemployment kings who are perfectly happy to live off the government handouts and make no effort to become self-sufficient. They've settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with and resist any efforts to encourage them to better themselves.

You're right - there are people like this. Still, to think everyone who is poor is like this is extremely myopic and wrong.

I'll play devil's advocate to try to get you to see how narrow minded that view is:

In America, most people seek to find a lifestyle where they are comfortable. So if someone finds a way to be "settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with", who are we to suggest they should do otherwise? Why are you attacking them for doing what most Americans attempt to do?

If someone is independently wealthy and decides they are comfortable and don't ever want to work, is that okay? What if someone has a spouse who pays all the bills and they decide they don't want to work because they are comfortable, is that okay? They're settling into a comfortable lifestyle and choosing not to work, so based on what you said you should be advocating that they better themselves and go to work anyway.

If your argument is people who use government resources shouldn't do that, perhaps the energy you and others spend judging these people for doing what most people try to do (but in a way you disapprove of) would be to go to the source (the government) and advocate change rather than wasting your energy on judgment for those who are living their lives the way the system lets them.

Wow. Even I didn't expect my devil's advocate argument to come together so well. Now I have to remind myself to advocate change rather than judging others for taking advantage of what is there the same way anyone else does.

?

"In America, most people seek to find a lifestyle where they are comfortable. So if someone finds a way to be "settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with", who are we to suggest they should do otherwise?"

Not if their chosen lifestyle is to live primarily off of government handouts, which is paid for out of the taxes that I pay based on the work that I do. Why should my hard work subsidize the lifestyle of somebody who chooses not to work?

"If someone is independently wealthy and decides they are comfortable and don't ever want to work, is that okay?"

Sure. If they're not taking government handouts, they are free to live their life anyway they want.

"What if someone has a spouse who pays all the bills and they decide they don't want to work because they are comfortable, is that okay?"
Sure. If they're not taking government handouts, they are free to live their life anyway they want.

"They're settling into a comfortable lifestyle and choosing not to work, so based on what you said you should be advocating that they better themselves and go to work anyway."
My comment was directed towards those who choose to live primarily off of government handouts. Not to everybody. That was clearly established in my comment.

"If your argument is people who use government resources shouldn't do that, perhaps the energy you and others spend judging these people for doing what most people try to do (but in a way you disapprove of) would be to go to the source (the government) and advocate change rather than wasting your energy on judgment for those who are living their lives the way the system lets them."
That is why I'll be voting for Romney on Tuesday."Wow. Even I didn't expect my devil's advocate argument to come together so well."

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back. You pretty much twisted every one of my statements out of context and ignored the gist of my comments in your "devil's advocate argument". Well done."Now I have to remind myself to advocate change rather than judging others for taking advantage of what is there the same way anyone else does."

You say "taking advantage". I say "abusing the system".

Was your father abusing the system when he supported your family on government checks? Do you believe they were just "free handouts"?

If your answer is no to the questions....who are you to generalize who and how people are living off government assistance? How do you know their situation isn't the same as yours? As someone who has benefited immensely from the social safety net, I find it odd that you would have such little compassion for those that need it as well. You do realize that your dad is part of Mitt's 47 percent...or would have been. How does it feel that your candidate would have found your dad to be a freeloader?

It reminds me of the guy in the Pit who argued and argued about how bad government in our lives were, and how people loved to live off the government teat...only to find out that his family made their money off nursing homes.

Posted by seamar_116 on 11/3/2012 10:58:00 AM (view original):I say they are paying lower taxes because of how their income is "earned". Capital gains pays a lower tax rate than other forms of income. I only bring this up because of the assumptions being made about the work ethic and morals of the "poor." I just wondered if some of you considered that it cuts both ways.

As far as I know, capital gains are taxed at the same rate, regardless of whether you're wealthy or middle class.

Income tax is graduated, so that wealthier people pay a higher income tax rate than do poorer people.

I don't get the bashing of capital gains tax rates. Those rates are lower for a reason . . . to encourage people to invest their money. Investing money is good for the economy.

Are you advocating for a VAT, in exchange for the elimination of income tax? Sales taxes do impact lower incomes more than higher ones, as everyone has basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, etc., but I know you get that. Am I correct in assuming that you are eliminating minimum tax credits, deductions for children, etc? The only tax would be a VAT (or however you want to define it)?

correct....

but if you look at the fair tax you will see there is a tiered credit that those below the poverty level receive on a monthly basis to offset the increased tax on basic needs.

I think the greatest advantage the fair tax gives us is the tax incentive for foreign companies to invest in the USA... to build factories and create jobs.

Posted by seamar_116 on 11/3/2012 10:58:00 AM (view original):I say they are paying lower taxes because of how their income is "earned". Capital gains pays a lower tax rate than other forms of income. I only bring this up because of the assumptions being made about the work ethic and morals of the "poor." I just wondered if some of you considered that it cuts both ways.

As far as I know, capital gains are taxed at the same rate, regardless of whether you're wealthy or middle class.

Income tax is graduated, so that wealthier people pay a higher income tax rate than do poorer people.

I don't get the bashing of capital gains tax rates. Those rates are lower for a reason . . . to encourage people to invest their money. Investing money is good for the economy.

yep.

the funny thing is savings and CDs are taxed as normal income.... something Romney wants to eliminate....

if anything the fact that every vehicle there is to increase your wealth is taxed at all is what holds the middle class back more than anything else. yet... the best rate of return for the middle class (the market) is currently taxed at a lower % and they want to higher that tax rate cause they are jealous of the rich. it actually hurts them more by raising the capital gains tax. do you know how easy it is to open a brokerage account.... all you need is a social security number.... there are no entry barriers like a hedge fund would have.

I can't think of a single person that has moved from middle class to wealthy on savings alone.

Posted by seamar_116 on 11/3/2012 10:58:00 AM (view original):I say they are paying lower taxes because of how their income is "earned". Capital gains pays a lower tax rate than other forms of income. I only bring this up because of the assumptions being made about the work ethic and morals of the "poor." I just wondered if some of you considered that it cuts both ways.

Capital gains are already a double-tax. It's not like the money was unearned somewhere in the past.

This is one of Obama's more obvious class-warfare weapons. Oooooh, someone who makes money on investments doesn't "work" for money....

Ignoring that the investment itself funds a BUSINESS that employs workers.

Posted by seamar_116 on 11/3/2012 10:58:00 AM (view original):I say they are paying lower taxes because of how their income is "earned". Capital gains pays a lower tax rate than other forms of income. I only bring this up because of the assumptions being made about the work ethic and morals of the "poor." I just wondered if some of you considered that it cuts both ways.

Capital gains are already a double-tax. It's not like the money was unearned somewhere in the past.

This is one of Obama's more obvious class-warfare weapons. Oooooh, someone who makes money on investments doesn't "work" for money....

Ignoring that the investment itself funds a BUSINESS that employs workers.